Now that was a weird film

[Zero]

Yes yes yes - - but what about ME@!!??!?!?!?!? (the point of this whole thread was to give you all a chance to show your admiration and adoration.. .. ahh poo nuts!)

I dig Jarmusch as well - loved the older stuff Down By Law, Mystery Train (probably my favorite). I thought Ghost Dog was the best plot-driven film. C&C was good in episodes, though I felt disappointed by some of the vignettes.

But by far my FAVORITE Jarmusch film is Night on Earth - LOVE LOVE LOVE that film.

Has anyone seen Broken Flowers?? I keep passing it by in the video store but feel kind of guilty for not picking it up.

[Elvis_Christ]

You get all the attention a smoking monkey needs. Don't you know that shit went outta vogue in the 50s :)

[Zero]

Originally posted by Elvis_Christ
You get all the attention a smoking monkey needs. Don't you know that shit went outta vogue in the 50s :)

i would quit it . . .but its such a strong addiction.
i confess, i've got a 'monkey' on my back!

:D

[scouse mac]

You could always pull on something else...




[IMG][/IMG]

[Zero]

Originally posted by scouse mac
You could always pull on something else...




[IMG][/IMG]

thanks - that' s the kind of "disturbing" that will stick with me all day. . . (of course, that is representative of the proportionate size of a monkey's penis and since I'm 5'10 - - - you do the math!!)

:D

[scouse mac]

Originally posted by Zero
thanks - that' s the kind of "disturbing" that will stick with me all day. . . (of course, that is representative of the proportionate size of a monkey's penis and since I'm 5'10 - - - you do the math!!)

:D

LOL. Good recovery!

[Zero]

Originally posted by scouse mac
LOL. Good recovery!

[PR3SSUR3]

The dawn of man is good, the whole HAL thing was very good but the film overall was too far up its own arse for me to consider it a great film. I can understand why the style and feel of the film appeals to some and not others, but its not for me.

Consider that this film was made in 1969, when sci-fi was generally restricted to low-budget productions - yet the film still looks unique and awe-inspiring today.

2001 should provoke your contemplation of its many challenging scenes, as you ponder Kubrick and Clarke's facts of the birth of mankind and their theories about where we are heading.

Are such startling visions and ideas destined to be reduced to being "anal" in the minds of those who consider the biggest questions with nothing less than contempt?

[scouse mac]

Consider that this film was made in 1969, when sci-fi was generally restricted to low-budget productions - yet the film still looks unique and awe-inspiring today.

This is true, there aren't many films with the look and feel of 2001.

2001 should provoke your contemplation of its many challenging scenes, as you ponder Kubrick and Clarke's facts of the birth of mankind and their theories about where we are heading.
[/B]

This is where we differ. This film clearly spoke to you and inspired you in some ways (hope Im not being presumptuous?). I just didn't get that, it didn't do anything like that for me. I felt the message of mans elevation to something higher was a bit pretentious.
It probably doesn't help that I am a cynical bastard at times! :)

[PR3SSUR3]

That's what I'm getting at: it seems the bolder the vision, the more open is the artist to calls of ostentatious self-aggrandizing - particularly from those who cannot counter with an alternative vision of their own for such a mystifying and intriguing question of where mankind is heading and what might control us.

To sum up: it's tuff at the top.

:cool: